A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC Collapse - Firehouse.com

[DoYouEverWonder]

I wonder why the M$M never bothered to cover this report? Probably because it knocks a few holes in the official story. Nice to see that the 'experts' running these tests can a least admit that they don't know what caused the towers to collapse. Unlike some of the 'experts' around here, who pop up to defend the official version.

02-07-2004

A fire intentionally set. Part of an experiment by a group of scientists who are still trying to figure out why the World Trade Center collapsed. And what they've found so far will surprise you, because it runs completely counter to what most people think happened.

A fire in a simulated office of the WTC devours virtually everything; workstations, paper, walls, carpet. Until in reality, both towers dissolved into 110-story chimneys.

But new tests at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) show it was not the jet fuel that kept those flames alive.

Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."

<snip>

And while the planes' wings and engines weakened some areas, scientists don't think that was enough to make the towers fall. They're now focusing on the floor truss supports where white foam fireproofing may not have been as strong as builders believed.

The reality is that more than two years later, investigators are still uncertain why the towers fell. No one has ever attempted a simulation this large.

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807

[LARED]

1. Why would you say this story is radical or new?

As far as I can tell vitually no one (those that have followed the investigation) at this point in time believes the jet fuel did anything other that start the fires, and no one I'm aware of thinks steel melted as a result of these fires.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. That is the title of the article

I guess I hang out in LBN too much, where we have to use the actual title.

[LARED]

3. I see what you mean

Also, the article is over two years old.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. It's new to me

Seems to discredit the NIST, maybe that's why the M$M ignored it?

[LARED]

5. Discredit the NIST???

Please expand on that

[mirandapriestly]

9. You're right DYEW, about NIST

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Nist could not get tests on models to fail so they did a computer modelwith "tweaking" and "adjustments". Then they refused to show computer visualizations.

"But, of course, the Final NIST
9-11 report “does not actually include the structural
behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.”
(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

“By comparison the global structural
model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used has been pushed
to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment
calls.” (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)

[LARED]

13. That's fascinating miranda, but

it is still quite unclear how the article in the OP discredits the NIST.

Please explain yourself.

Thanks

[Bolo Boffin]

6. As far as I understand the NIST explanation

Jet fuel started an huge fire over several floors.

Buildings are designed for a small fire that moves. The beams initially close to the fire might get to the weakening point, but the surrounding beams stay strong. And as the fire moves, it leaves behind the hot beams which cool and regain strength.

This couldn't happen in the WTC. The fire was too large, and started instantly over several floors. The hat truss in both buildings contributed materially to keeping both buildings up, but eventually even its effect was overcome, and gravity did the rest.

[dailykoff]

7. Fire had no effect whatsoever on the structural steel.

There's no evidence of it and there's no reason why it would, especially in the short duration before the buildings came down.

Ditto the trusses. There's no evidence that they were in the least affected by fire.

[LARED]

11. Why do you believe that?

[dailykoff]

15. It's not a question of belief.

I'm pointing out what the evidence shows, which is consistent with how the materials in the building would behave under the circumstances.

The only miraclous anamolies requiring belief on 9/11 were the officially reported ones, and they didn't happen.

[LARED]

16. You pointed out some evidence?

When and where?

[dailykoff]

17. All of it. (n/t)

[LARED]

18. It must be invisible.

Or perhaps special tinfoil glasses are required.

[dailykoff]

19. Knowledge of the subject is also helpful. (n/t)

[LARED]

20. I agree

But I must admit I'm not very knowledgeable about invisible evidence.

Just out of curiosity, beside rhetoric and hyperbole are you knowledgeable about anything.

[Jazz2006]

37. She doesn't do facts or evidence.

Ever.

[dailykoff]

38. Answer a fool according to his folly.

So sayeth the Good Book.

:shrug:

[Jazz2006]

39. I don't do religion...

but I do facts.

You don't.

Simple, really.

[dailykoff]

41. Thanks for a good laugh.

:rofl:

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. Everyone likes a good laugh now and then

but so far there has only been irony in this thread...not humor.

[Debunking911]

27. This seems to be his typical argument.

I wouldn't look for him to reply with any evidence.

[m0nkeyneck]

28. pot, meet kettle...

brilliant

[Debunking911]

30. More of the same.

This seems to be the caliber of argument for CD. The Pee Wee Herman argument. "I know you are but what am I?"

[dailykoff]

32. Funny you should mention Pee Wee . . . (n/t)

[m0nkeyneck]

33. i asked you a question a while back regarding what you call...

'evidence' on your site.. it was ignored

after looking around i notice 2 things about you:
a. you only respond to those w/ weak arguments and b. you spend way too much time on these boards debunking something that will most likely never be proven..

so again.. pot, meet kettle

plus, most of you 'evidence' is as weak as the CT 'evidence' …so why bother

[dailykoff]

31. ROFL!

thanks! :rofl:

[m0nkeyneck]

34. too bad his site is irrelevent...

would be fun to watch an 'expert' pick it apart; but who would waste time on such garbage ;-)

makes you wonder about someone that invests so much time trying to suppress discussion.

[dailykoff]

35. Exactly. (n/t)

[rman]

10. The NIST 'explanation' only works with additional fuel,

according to their own tests.

[Make7]

12. Additional fuel compared to what? ( n/t )

[petgoat]

40. Additional fuel as compared to an ordinary office fire.

According to Jim Hoffman, NIST's experimental method was:

A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC. (p 123/173)

Hoffman says this is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves -- in a living-room-sized space.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

[Make7]

46. Do you think the towers had the fuel loads of ordinary office fires? - n/t

[petgoat]

48. The jet fuel burned off in ten minutes. nt

[Make7]

49. Is that a yes, or a no? ( n/t )

[dailykoff]

8. I think what they're trying to say is,

"Sure, the NIST is a crock, but fire really did do the job."

In other words, covering their lying butts.

[Debunking911]

14. This IS in the official report.

The NIST is the one who said the jet fuel wasn't the cause of the collapse and they ARE the people behind the official report. The final report doesn't say jet fuel brought down the building. To my knowlege they never did say it. This is a conspiracy theory straw man.

The impacts spread jet fuel into the buildings. Not all the fuel was used in the fire ball. In fact, eye witnesses say jet fuel was creating curtains of fire as it poured down from the impact zone. But the jet fuel only started the fires. It was never the NIST's contention that the jet fuel brought down the buildings as conspiracy theorist suggest. Conspiracy theorist use this as a straw man. They say the jet fuel couldn't have bowed the columns and sagged trusses. But just as lighter fluid doesn't cook your meat in a barbeque, the jet fuel didn't sag the trusses or bow the columns. You also can't leave this important factor out either. Conspiracy theorist say the columns couldn't have bowed and the trusses couldn't have sagged because the jet fuel wasn't hot enough and was used up within about 10 minutes of impact. That's like saying your meat didn't cook in your barbeque because the lighter fluid burns too quickly. All the jet fuel did was act as lighter fluid and intensify the fire for about 15 minutes.

The impact brought a 500 mile an hour wind to the impact floors as parts traveled from one end of the buildings to the other. This high wind blew the debris into the furthest corners of the building. It obviously stripped the ceiling tile system off in an instant. In that same instant the all important blown on fire proofing was removed from the trusses and some columns. This could be seen from photographic evidence in the NIST report. The NIST also replicated the fireproofing and conditions during impact and found the fireproofing easily blew off. As with all the NIST tests anyone can replicate them if they doubt the conclusion. You can learn more about it below.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/towers.htm

[Thorandmjolnir]

21. 500 mile an hour wind?

Sorry, but I had to comment on that.

Do you realize how much wind that is?

A hurricane 1 is 75 miles per hour wind.

A hurricane 5 is wind above 130 miles an hour.

Where did the 500 miles an hour wind come from? And don't tell me the plane that hit the WTC. Because wind is not pressed in front of an object, instead it is lead around the edges on an object, like when you are passed by a big truck on the interstate and it makes your car move to the side.

So again, where did the 500 miles and hour wind come from?

[wildbilln864]

22. Yes please do elaborate on this mysterious......

previously unmentioned 500 mph wind!
That's amusing!

[Thorandmjolnir]

23. For me, personally,

Debunking911's credibility just flew out the window with 500 miles an hour wind.

[wildbilln864]

24. Bjarn..

Exactly!

[vincent_vega_lives]

44. Momentum

an object (including jet fuel) moving at 500mph will continue to move at that velocity until friction decelerates it.

[Debunking911]

25. The plane hit the building at 500 miles an hour

When it crashed through the first perimeter walls and glass at 500 miles an hour it would have moved the air directly in front of it as you said in your truck analogy. (Leading edge) Do you think the wall of debris flying through the floors wouldn't move the air on those floors out of the debris path just as fast out of it's way? How do you think a set of perimeter columns were removed on the other side of the building by landing gear if it wasn't traveling at a high rate of speed all the way through?

They took a 757 and inserted it onto about 5 floors in less than a second. It HAD to displace mondo air. The towers were sealed up to that point. It wasn't out in the open like your truck. Try ramming a truck through a small home at 500 miles an hour. You don't think the air will displace at the same rate of speed by the transfer of momentum from truck to debris? Think about that for a second.

I'm used to people taking parts of my posts out of context or purposely making light of physics they don't understand. This is nothing new to me.

My point is this is in the official report. Making light of physics you don't understand on another issue doesn't change that. It's just a diversion

[Thorandmjolnir]

26. An object like a plane does not

move air in front of it.

Instead it moves through the air. To claim that the plane moved air in front of it at a speed of 500 miles an hour and that that air caused the spread of the fire is against the laws of physics.

Air is moved to the side, like in my example. What caused the debris to spread is not the air but the plane itself and the explosion.

If you ram a truck through a home, the damage if from the truck, not the air. Its called airflow.

Just look at any wind tunnel experiment. The air moves around the object, and does not remain stationary in front of the object.
Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.

[Debunking911]

29. Once you hit the building it's no longer an airliner

It's a debris field. There was steel columns and trusses, glass, concrete from the floors and office furniture. You are discribing something impossible. That the airliner stayed in one place and it's arodynamic properties were left intact. Do you realize what you are suggesting? You are suggesting the jet fuel stayed in the ruptured wings by saying there was no spread of jet fuel.

"Air is moved to the side, like in my example. What caused the debris to spread is not the air but the plane itself and the explosion."

I never said the AIR caused the debris to spread.. This is YOUR straw man. The air was moved by the debris and yes, explosion.

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/Glossary.html

What I DID say was the air from the impact, (500 mile an hour airliner impact) and you can include the explosion which I didn't even mention at over the speed of sound, blow the insulation off some columns and trusses.

"The impact brought a 500 mile an hour wind to the impact floors as parts traveled from one end of the buildings to the other."

More than 500 miles an hour because as you point out there was the shock wave of the explosion. But the point is made. I will clarify this anyway.

"This high wind blew the debris into the furthest corners of the building."

The debris was blown into the furthest corners of the building by the impact, thought not only the "High wind". ("WIND" can mean air which is blown.) The debris I'm talking about is detailed further. I go on to discribe "ceiling tile system" and "Fireproofing". But I will clarify this. Not all debris is large.

Bottom line, there was enough "Wind" to blow off the fireproofing.

[vincent_vega_lives]

45. correct but jet fuel moving at 500mph into the building

and igniting at the same time...would create quite a displacement of air.

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. Maybe what is causing some confusion

is a report put out by FEMA. I didn't realize there were two different reports? It seems that the info from both reports has been combined to create some of the popular myths that are now the 'official' story. However, this FEMA report sure does seem to be based more on propaganda then reality.

FEMA Report: Engineers Study WTC Collapse

April 30, 2002


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The World Trade Center's superior construction allowed it to withstand the initial impact of two jetliners and remain standing long enough for thousands to escape, according to a government analysis.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's report, which The Associated Press obtained Tuesday from a government official, offers suggestions for improving building construction but concludes it may never be possible to build a structure that could survive a catastrophic event like Sept. 11.

<snip>

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework. Heat from the fire was comparable to the energy produced by a large commercial power-generating plant, the report said.

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage. But the rest of the fuel quickly snaked across floors and down elevator shafts, setting ablaze furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo.

The temperatures of the fire reached an estimated 2,000 degrees, melting the steel support system and causing the upper floors to collapse onto lower floors, which could not withstand the weight.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/4/30_APwtc.html

[Debunking911]

42. I think it's the conspiracy sites which are causing the confusion

They know the investigation was on going when they ponted to this old article. The proof is you didn't know there was more than one report. Why didn't the "Conspiracy Story" tell you that? Why would they bring up a hypothesis made before the investigation was over to suggest they are lying? That's like a cop during a murder investigation saying "It looks like he was hit with a bat." on the day they find the body then calling him the murderer because they found out later it was a 2x4.

[DoYouEverWonder]

47. Your point?

If you have evidence to refute what is presented, then show it.

I prefer proof over your inane ranting.